I do. Apple has been known to drop stuff that isn't profitable enough, i.e. even though it makes money, it doesn't make ENOUGH money. If the Mac continues to slide, it won't be long before Tim says "screw it" and focusses the company's attention on just being the preeminent mobile manufacturer. I don't wanna go back to using Windows.

I agree with those who suggest that price is a factor. I'm hanging onto an aging machine even though I'd kinda like stuff like USB3 and solid-state storage just because the cost of entry is so bloody high. I use the machine for content creation so the Air, with its little screen and comparatively anemic guts, isn't a good option. By the time I load up a new one with comparable guts I'm up over three grand (pushing four after AppleCare and tax).

Now let's say Apple put a little less Excellentium into each model. That would have two benefits for Apple. First, my aging machine would have failed by now, forcing me to buy a new one. Second, the price of a new one would not be so high that I would have waited this long and would already HAVE a new one (maybe even two by now).

I know it's not a popular opinion, but I honestly think Apple's pricing strategy WRT Macs is self-destructive. I can't prove it without convincing Apple to try my approach though, so I guess we'll never know.

That information is a year-and-a-half old (four years in the case of the first link). According to today's article that's no longer true. That's the point.

Well considering Mac sales were up this past quarter, now what do you have to say about price effecting Mac sales? I think its just more like you want a Mac for the price of a Dell and that just isn't going to happen.

I said the 2009 Xserve is faster than the base 2013 Mac Pro, the very best 2013 Mac Pro is only twice as fast as the 2009 Xserve. I can't make it much clearer than that.

If Apple put two 12 core CPUs in the Mac Pro as they could with the old design (or the Xserve design) the speed increase would be many times faster than the 2009 Xserve as opposed to just twice as fast. Doubling the speed in 6 years isn't much of an improvement in the grand scheme of things. Read up on Moores Law.

Most applications are CPU bound. Very few other than video editing programs use the GPU, as GPUs are highly parallel and not suited to most tasks.

It does seem you're ignoring most points and burying your head in the sand when anyone says something you can't counter.

I know what you said. You're a flip flopper to make your point valid. Nothing was ignored.

Quote:

Yes it's impressive that Intel, not Apple, have been able to fit 12 cores onto one CPU. It's impressive that Apple can cool a CPU in a fairly small space, though that's not what Pros were asking for. They were asking for a more powerful desktop, size was far from their primary concern.

So you've gone out, done the market research of what Apple's Pro customers want with a Mac Pro then? You know how to run Apple, better than Apple?

Basically, this is what happened even though you'll never admit it. Apple designed, engineered, built and released a Mac Pro YOU don't like and/or maybe it doesn't suit YOUR needs so you and a couple of your worker friends automatically think this isn't what Apple's Pro customers want because it doesn't YOUR needs. So lets go on a rant in a forum and make up some stories about how the old Mac Pro is faster and maybe, just maybe Apple will go back to the ridiculously large tower, put slower rotational hard drives back in, with slower processors, slower RAM, slower consumer grade graphics and this will make you wet your pants. Yes, Apple should just cater to you.

Considering how much of a backorder there was for the Mac Pro and for how long its safe to say people wanted this and this IS what Pro customers were asking for. And don't give me this garbage that its because assembly is in the US, or its difficult to build, etc.

Basically, this is what happened even though you'll never admit it. Apple designed, engineered, built and released a Mac ProYOUdon't like and/or maybe it doesn't suitYOURneeds so you and a couple of your worker friends automatically think this isn't what Apple's Pro customers want because it doesn'tYOURneeds.

You're kidding, right? You're completely ignoring the valid objections of all the people who BOUGHT the damn thing who have legitimate cost and fitness-for-purpose concerns?

There are lots of reasons to be really excited about the new model, not least of which is putting storage on the PCIe bus. That doesn't mean it's the perfect machine, or even that it meets the needs of MOST of its market. The loss of slots and internal storage have genuine, real-world cost and workflow implications. In our case it meant replacing a bunch of working, current-model peripherals, the total cost of which was almost as much as the computer itself. Try getting THAT past the bean counters!

What Apple built is a machine that perfectly suits their direction in software development. That's a reasonable approach, but not necessarily ideal for those whose primary app doesn't employ Apple's GPU-centric approach. That doesn't mean Apple did something "wrong." It just means that some users who have invested in the approach employed by the previous model are going to have to make some expensive and/or inconvenient choices if they want to use the new Mac Pro. Those concerns are perfectly valid and reasonable.

You're kidding, right? You're completely ignoring the valid objections of all the people who BOUGHT the damn thing who have legitimate cost and fitness-for-purpose concerns?

There are lots of reasons to be really excited about the new model, not least of which is putting storage on the PCIe bus. That doesn't mean it's the perfect machine, or even that it meets the needs of MOST of its market. The loss of slots and internal storage have genuine, real-world cost and workflow implications. In our case it meant replacing a bunch of working, current-model peripherals, the total cost of which was almost as much as the computer itself. Try getting THAT past the bean counters!

What Apple built is a machine that perfectly suits their direction in software development. That's a reasonable approach, but not necessarily ideal for those whose primary app doesn't employ Apple's GPU-centric approach. That doesn't mean Apple did something "wrong." It just means that some users who have invested in the approach employed by the previous model are going to have to make some expensive and/or inconvenient choices if they want to use the new Mac Pro. Those concerns are perfectly valid and reasonable.

Oh Boohoo...first, nobody made you upgrade. Second, if the current MacPro doesn't meet your needs then go get something that does instead of bitching on a forum. Again, Apple knows the market far better than you do. It always has and always will. Stop trying to run Apple better than Apple.

Oh Boohoo...first, nobody made you upgrade. Second, if the current MacPro doesn't meet your needs then go get something that does instead of bitching on a forum. Again, Apple knows the market far better than you do. It always has and always will. Stop trying to run Apple better than Apple.

<*Sigh*> There's just no way to have a reasoned, or even civil, conversation with you, is there? Everything is absolutes. There is no middle ground where one can lean primarily to the "like" side of the equation but still have legitimate issues on the "don't like" side. Anything that isn't completely embraced by the user is whining and a case of Apple knowing better. Right.

I hope you don't take that approach to evangelizing for Apple. Hearing you tell me how Apple knows my wants, needs and business better than I do and telling me I'm a whiner if I don't blindly accept everything Apple ever does would send me running to the competition faster than any design change Apple could ever make.

Oh Boohoo...first, nobody made you upgrade. Second, if the current MacPro doesn't meet your needs then go get something that does instead of bitching on a forum. Again, Apple knows the market far better than you do. It always has and always will. Stop trying to run Apple better than Apple.

<*Sigh*> There's just no way to have a reasoned, or even civil, conversation with you, is there? Everything is absolutes. There is no middle ground where one can lean primarily to the "like" side of the equation but still have legitimate issues on the "don't like" side. Anything that isn't completely embraced by the user is whining and a case of Apple knowing better. Right.

I hope you don't take that approach to evangelizing for Apple. Hearing you tell me how Apple knows my wants, needs and business better than I do and telling me I'm a whiner if I don't blindly accept everything Apple ever does would send me running to the competition faster than any design change Apple could ever make.

We get it. You think Macs are too expensive. They're not, but if you really don't want to buy one, wait for the ARM Mac, which will be substantially cheaper.

"If the young are not initiated into the village, they will burn it down just to feel its warmth."- African proverb